Trump Will Win In 2020 #DT2020

[Guest]

Hi All, I would like to clarify something. In various posts recently I have read statements to the effect of ''Trump will not be re-elected''. I am obviously missing something but as far as I'm aware every other potential candidate is considered an absolute joke and not a real threat in any sense?

Therefore : 

1. What does everyone foresee as the implications of re-election, considering the current trade disputes, the USA's future under Trump, and China's trump card seemingly being to delay all they can to wait for the election at all? 

2. Who is this infamous person that will win, if not Trump?!

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Guest

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Hi All. Forgive my potential English ignorance in this matter but I would like to clarify something. In various posts recently I have read statements to the effect of ''Trump will not be re-elected''. I am obviously missing something but as far as I'm aware every other potential candidate is considered an absolute joke and not a real threat in any sense?

Possibly viable joke candidate.  Probably has a better chance than any of the current Democratic contenders to Trump.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Depends on if he gets a deal and if the economy is in a recession.  Others are a threat.  

Edited September 7, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Charles Voegeli + 6]

Everyone won’t admit that they will support Trump, but they will, especially all business folks. My clients all give him the thumbs up and my democratic leadership clients are hush hush and are sick and tired of all the lies their people have invoked on society . Blow job big time..

Economy is great but we do need to work on global warming, not straws or hurricanes. Kill the oil industry, never happen. You can’t make anything without it. Wal-Mart would collapse. What fun !!??!!??

[Charles Voegeli + 6]

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Possibly viable joke candidate.  Probably has a better chance than any of the current Democratic contenders to Trump.

Frickin funny, good job, I’m still voting TRUMP 

[Dmitry Bedin + 25]

Next POTUS gonna be Putin. It is obvios 😎

[fozzir + 68]

If Trump does lose, (which is highly unlikely) it will be the first time a President has been unseated by a cartoon character. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Others are a threat.  

Who?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Others are a threat.  

 

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

Who?

 

Seems that Thanos is not really a viable threat to Trump getting re-elected.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, fozzir said:

If Trump does lose, (which is highly unlikely) it will be the first time a President has been unseated by a cartoon character. 

Pocahantas would have a much better chance of winning if she looked like that Pocahantas! Of course there are more important issues than looks, like fossil fuel use, the economy, socialism, spending trillions on every possible foolish idea, etc. 

[Guest]

When asked ''what's the first thing you'd do if elected?''

(Thanks @Tom Kirkman )

Edited September 7, 2019 by Guest

[butasha + 123]

I can’t remember the last time I actually voted for a specific candidate. I basically vote against the candidate and/or party that I feel will do the most damage to the country that I admittedly still care for deeply. 

If Trump is the opposition for the looney left then he will get my vote. I am no expert but feel quite confident that there is a large portion of the silent conservative population that feel and vote the same way.

Time will tell.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

GOP welcomes Democrats to New Hampshire with a banner.  Real Life can be amusing.  Honk Honk!

 

[Guest]

Apologies if you've seen this. It's an OilPrice article, rather fitting... 

- The Democratic presidential candidates are gearing up for a lengthy town hall event on CNN covering climate change, where they will discuss a range of plans that will entirely upend the U.S. energy sector. In the last few months, the candidates have tried to outdo each other as they released ever more aggressive plans on energy and climate change, engaging in an arms race of sorts with trillion-dollar spending plans. 

- There is still quite a gulf between, say, Vice President Joe Biden’s $1.7 trillion plan and Senator Bernie Sanders’ $16.3 trillion plan and everything in between. There is arguably an even greater ideological difference in the modest carbon tax proposals and R&D clean tech funding from South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, which very much rely on private companies and leave existing energy markets largely untouched, and the more dramatic economic and social transformation embedded in Sen. Sanders’ plan, which, among other things, calls for publicly-owned utilities to lead the way on renewable energy.

- But perhaps the most striking thing about the climate plans is where the candidates agree. The proposals range in scope, but they are undoubtedly bold visions for a clean energy transition. It was too long ago that a modest carbon tax was seen as controversial; now the baseline in the Democratic Party is a complete phase out of fossil fuels in the medium- to long-term. The Overton window has very much been moved. As Bloomberg noted, there are several issues that they all agree on. For instance, they will all rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, which, given the scale of the climate crisis, is child’s play. That’s the bare minimum and almost not worth mentioning, especially since it relied on voluntary commitments anyway. It was also done by the prior Democratic administration so it shouldn’t be seen as any sort of bold proposal for change.

- More relevant for the oil and gas sector is the call to end subsidies for fossil fuels, which total as much as $14.7 billion annually, including deductions for intangible drilling costs; last-in, first-out accounting; master-limited partnership tax exemptions; and low-cost royalty and leasing rates on federal lands, among others. Some of this was also proposed by the Obama administration but stalled in Congress. It may give some oil executives a bit of heartburn to see their subsidies on the chopping block, but even if passed, these measures wouldn’t fundamentally disrupt the industry.

- But here is where it gets really tricky if you are an oil and gas driller. Many of the top tier candidates want to revoke the permits or otherwise block major long-distance pipelines, including Keystone XL, Dakota Access, Line 3, Line 5, and essentially any other project of this nature. This will severely damage Canada’s oil sands, which will begin to lose access to the U.S. market. Oil sands producers would only have the Pacific Ocean as their way out.

- Moving on to other ambitious proposals. All of the candidates – at least all of the viable ones – have vowed to end drilling on federal lands. This was something Senator Elizabeth Warren came out with early on, and other candidates have followed suit. No new leases for offshore drilling, none for BLM land, etc. The candidates point out that to fundamentally transform the energy system, and to hit climate targets that are becoming exceedingly difficult to reach, oil and gas reserves need to be left in the ground.

- Some candidates want a ban on oil exports and a ban on fracking. Many of them have some version of a net-zero emissions target, although the timeframes vary. That means eliminating fossil fuels from the energy system entirely, including full electrification of the transportation fleet. While much of these ideas target fossil fuels, at the same time the candidates want to invest trillions in renewable energy, cleantech R&D, EV fleets and infrastructure, green manufacturing, and a litany of other initiatives intended to accelerate the transition off of fossil fuels.

- This is by no means a comprehensive look at all the details of individual climate proposals. But the point is that the U.S. oil and gas industry would be phased out of existence. Much of the plans are hypothetical, and would require heavy lifts by the U.S. Congress. Passing legislation that overhauls huge sectors of the economy is not something the institution is known for.

- But there is plenty of room for executive action, notably on major pipeline infrastructure, fracking, air regulations, and drilling on public lands. The President won’t need to turn to Congress to still upend the oil and gas industry. It’s telling that in the last few weeks, much has been made of the Trump administration’s regulatory rollback on methane emissions, a signature policy from the Obama administration. It’s a testament to the scope and scale of the climate proposals from the 2020 candidates that regulating methane is such an afterthought, a miniscule policy idea compared to the transformational packages on offer.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Of course there are more important issues than looks,

I think Trump being elected is proof of that   

[Zhong Lu + 845]

10 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Who?

US elections are always split close to 50-50 in popular vote.  52-48, 53-47, 51-49, etc. Almost ALWAYS.  

The issue is which way the 2 or 3% falls (does one side have trouble getting people to vote? Is one side a little more enthusiastic than the other?) Etc. 

"Who" doesn't matter.  Presidential elections are statistical coin flips.  If 100,000 of the voters who turned out for Trump in 2016 sit out for 2020, Trump loses regardless of who the Democrats field.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The US Presidential elections are decided on the Electoral, not the Popular, vote.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

18 hours ago, Charles Voegeli said:

Everyone won’t admit that they will support Trump, but they will, especially all business folks. My clients all give him the thumbs up and my democratic leadership clients are hush hush and are sick and tired of all the lies their people have invoked on society . Blow job big time..

Economy is great but we do need to work on global warming, not straws or hurricanes. Kill the oil industry, never happen. You can’t make anything without it. Wal-Mart would collapse. What fun !!??!!??

Why do we need to work on global warming?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The US Presidential elections are decided on the Electoral, not the Popular, vote.

Which amplifies the result of the statistical coin flip.  You look at the map painted red or blue and you think "oh this person won by a lot."  Then you look at the actual numbers (popular vote) and it's obvious whoever won, had won by a razor thin margin within statistical error.  Even if we focus on the swing states, Trump won only by maybe 200k votes out of tens of millions casted.  

Regardless of who won, approximately 50% of the country is happy and 50% is pissed.  And in the next election it could very easily flip around.

US presidential election are almost never "mandates for change" no matter how anyone tries to spin it.  I didn't believe it when Obama won and I still don't believe it after Trump won. What the presidential elections really are are pissing contests for the right to piss off the other side.  

Edited September 8, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Trigger warning... videos in the link:

MSNBC Calls Republican’s Belief in Only Two Genders ‘Incendiary’

MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing referred to a Louisiana Republican's belief that there are only two genders as "incendiary" on Friday.

Jansing and her panel addressed the GOP's relationship with women and the LGBT community, in the aftermath of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national LGBT group, endorsing President Donald Trump for a second term.

"We've got an important question now," Jansing told viewers. "What does it mean to be a mainstream Republican? It is the question that some Republicans have been asking in the age of Donald Trump, and increasingly, it seems the answer might be to make incendiary comments about women and members of the LGBT community."

"In Louisiana, the Republican candidate for governor, Ralph Abraham, is out with a new TV ad this week making incendiary comments about gender," she added.

Rep. Ralph Abraham (R., La.), who is seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D.), released a TV ad where he laid out a series of his conservative positions, among them his medical assertion there are only two genders.

"Here's the truth," he said. "Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders."

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

his medical assertion there are only two genders.

"Here's the truth," he said. "Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders."

 

This is gold but it's a sorry state of affairs when we need a doctor to assert this for the public. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

This is gold but it's a sorry state of affairs when we need a doctor to assert this for the public. 

 

But apparently it is incendiary to state the obvious biological fact that there are only 2 genders. 

And apparently an assertion that there are only 2 genders is a "belief".

Absurdity Uber Alles in the MSNBC Clown Circus.

13 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

MSNBC Calls Republican’s Belief in Only Two Genders ‘Incendiary’

MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing referred to a Louisiana Republican's belief that there are only two genders as "incendiary" on Friday.

 

... his medical assertion there are only two genders.

"Here's the truth," he said. "Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders."

 

[Guest]

Humanity is doomed. I genuinely worry for it. 

'' Facts matter more than feelings ''   - the sooner society gets this in their head the better. 

What were you born with?  A cock and balls.  Right, you're a man.   Next!

That's my ''belief'' based on logic, evolution, biology and fact.

Incendiary that. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

HAHA Tom the topic is Trump will win in 2020

On 9/7/2019 at 1:47 AM, DayTrader said:

What does everyone foresee as the implications of re-election, considering the current trade disputes, the USA's future under Trump, and China's trump card (no pun intended) seemingly being to delay all they can to wait for the election at all? 

No one mentions this bit of my post haha. Maybe Zhong did a little in fairness but that's it. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Guest

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

13 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

HAHA Tom the topic is Trump will win in 2020

That is an incendiary belief, and I demand that you apologize!